Do you think Trump will be reelected?

From an outsider's perspective, it seems as if more people have turned against him since he became President although he clearly has a large number of loyal fans. I ask as I've been seeing the "impeachment" discussion start up again following some developments with Mueller's investigation.

VaderBomb wrote:If that schmuck gets two terms then America is officially one of the stupidest countries on Earth.

Think the jury is in on that one, dude.

I'm pretty sure he won't get re-elected. He's the least popular American president ever. His popularity isn't what it was when he was elected and even then he was only elected because of the uniquely terrible candidate that the Democrats ran, and he still lost the popular vote. If Clinton was to somehow become the Democratic nominee then all bets are off, but even if she announced I don't think she'd win the primary this time around.

Trump running for reelection is probably the best thing for the Democrats in 2020. If he was to be impeached before then, if anything I reckon it'll help the Republicans in the long-run. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be impeached though.

I personally believe that we're one of the stupidest countries on Earth (The constitution and bill of rights are awesome) but if Trump get reelected, it's set in stone and no argument can be made against it that we live in a country filled to the brim with morons. Before Trump got elected the percentage of smart Americans vs Stupid Americans was a tiny bit lower. If he gets a second term we're just fucked.

Help us Bernie, there are no other reasonable options. Every other option will blatantly be taking Super PAC money. Citizen's United must be eliminated.

This is a hard question to answer. Trump should not have won the election and certainly shouldn't win re-election. However, it would take some serious bucking of trends in US voting tendency for Trump not to win re-election.

The country has a 65-year voting history of basically doing two things. When a sitting president is up for re-election he gets re-elected, following the devil you know is better than the devil you don't theory. However, once a term runs out the opposite party gets re-elected. The only president in the past 65 years to buck that trend is George H.W. Bush, who both followed a Republican and was ousted after only one term. That's it, since 1953 voting has been almost perfectly predictable, that even covers assassinations, impeachment hearings and anything else you can think of.

Also, thanks to the rules of election, the fact that the Republicans didn't win the popular vote and likely will never win the popular vote ever again, doesn't matter because of the Electoral College rules.

It's weird though, because while you're completely right in terms of Presidents historically being voted in for a second term, it feels like the basis of Trump's appeal was that he was 'the devil you don't know'. People were voting for a radical change and a shake up of the system. Which they've seen. Anyone who chooses to vote for him again out of a sense of stability is twice the idiot of those who voted for him the first time.

Hanley! wrote:It's weird though, because while you're completely right in terms of Presidents historically being voted in for a second term, it feels like the basis of Trump's appeal was that he was 'the devil you don't know'. People were voting for a radical change and a shake up of the system. Which they've seen. Anyone who chooses to vote for him again out of a sense of stability is twice the idiot of those who voted for him the first time.

Well, but that's the trend as well. After George HW Bush, the country voted for a big shift in ideas by electing Clinton. After Clinton's 8 years they voted in W. Bush who was a drastic shift away from Clinton's policies. Then voters brought in Obama, who in many ways was just as drastic a shift away from Bush as Trump was away from him. Donald Trump got elected in because he was a Republican, not a Democrat. He got voted in because he wasn't Hillary Clinton or any sort of extension of the Obama years.

If the midterms are any indication then Trump is less likely to be reelected. Republicans had major losses in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Those were the 3 major states that got Trump elected. The Democrats are going to hitch their wagon to Beto O'Rourke which could help in Texas. The last thing the Democrats want is a spilt party between Beto and Bernie. Who ever loses the primary should just accept a position as the VP.

I'd say so as I haven't seen a Democrat candidate as a viable threat to him and as aforementioned, the President normally gets re-elected and he might just eek over the winning line which will say just as much about how the nation feels about him. I thought he wouldn't survive his first term but it seems Republicans wouldn't impeach their guy or the Democrats aren't strong enough to do so either.

America has become a laughing stock in his time, but then I think about Brexit and the utter fucking mess that it is and realise our MPs are hardly shining lights.

AkydefGoldberg wrote:I'd say so as I haven't seen a Democrat candidate as a viable threat to him and as aforementioned, the President normally gets re-elected and he might just eek over the winning line which will say just as much about how the nation feels about him. I thought he wouldn't survive his first term but it seems Republicans wouldn't impeach their guy or the Democrats aren't strong enough to do so either.

America has become a laughing stock in his time, but then I think about Brexit and the utter fucking mess that it is and realise our MPs are hardly shining lights.

We're all screwed.

There's still a strong chance that Trump will get impeached, but it's a pretty complicated process. You can't just impeach a guy you don't like, the country doesn't like or a guy that just tweets too much. You have to build a case that actual laws were broken by the president to impeach him. That takes time, but there are Trump people that are getting indicted as more information comes out.

There definitely are threats to Trump. Even a weak democrat would be a threat, considering he's the least popular American president in history (which is another reason why previous trends may not apply to him). But if Sanders - for example - was to become the nominee, he'd probably blow Trump away. He's the most popular politician in the country, and he has the same anti-establishment appeal that Trump does.

After last time, I don't want to count my chickens, but it's anything but inevitable that Trump is reelected. Right now it seems like the less likely outcome, but a lot can happen in 2 years.

Hanley! wrote:There definitely are threats to Trump. Even a weak democrat would be a threat, considering he's the least popular American president in history (which is another reason why previous trends may not apply to him). But if Sanders - for example - was to become the nominee, he'd probably blow Trump away. He's the most popular politician in the country, and he has the same anti-establishment appeal that Trump does.

Meh. Bernie is too old, not to mention he lost the primary in 2016 (rigged or not, it's still a fact that he didn't get the nomination), so I wouldn't say he's actually as strong of a candidate as people want him to be. I'm surprised to see that his supporters are still holding their ground - which is a good thing I guess - but I think Bernie has too many weakness at this stage. I remember back in 2008 when just about everyone who didn't like John Mccain was throwing around his age a lot and claiming he was too old to be president. And at the time Mccain was 8 years younger than Bernie will be in 2020.

I think it all depends on who becomes the nominee. Trump is capable of getting Republicans to go out and vote, so we need someone who can do the same for Democrats. Someone charismatic who can easily get their message across. Bernie and Joe Biden fit that bill, but their age is a problem. Elizabeth Warren is a name that could potentially join the race, but I think she is lacking in the charisma department and has already been ridiculed by Trump for years. In any case, a boring candidate won't get the job done, and merely standing next to Trump and looking like the sane one of the two will not be enough. So I hope that in the coming two years we see the establishment of some decent candidates, preferably a name not currently in this discussion. If Trump can win once, he can win twice. Even if all signs are pointing to his popularity being in the decline, even if all logic dictates that he is losing support, I wouldn't count him out or take him likely... again.

I do think Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump in 2016, simply because he wasn't Hillary. I maintain that Hillary was the only possible person in the country that could have lost to Trump, because of the three-decade smear campaign the right has waged against her. She was the worst possible person the Democrats could have run, but they'd done a bad job of building up any exciting younger candidates.

Bernie was appealing because he was seen as an outsider (even though he's been in the senate for decades), and was REAL and was a real progressive voice.

But he shouldn't run again. He's too old. He accomplished more as a candidate in 2016 than he ever could as president--he brought Democratic Socialism and a true progressive wave to the mainstream. Lots of younger, exciting candidates of all backgrounds won elections in 2018 largely due to his influence. There are also now younger figures in the Democratic party that are becoming more outspoken about some of the issues he raised.

There are going to be problems with just about any Democrat who runs for the party--Bernie loyalists will have their own "purity" tests, especially for people like a Corey Booker or a Kamala Harris. But no matter who the Democrats run, it's going to be a signfiicantly better option than what they ended up getting in 2016 with Clinton--someone who can actually win.

I'm hoping Beto O'Rourke can continue his momentum and get on the ticket somehow, whether it's as the actual candidate or as a VP running mate. He reminds me a lot of Barack Obama circa 2004-2006 right now. He's a fantastic speaker, comes across as incredibly genuine and has a message and values that align with what America really needs right now. Plus, he's a fresh face to the scene with nowhere near the baggage of some of the other big-time candidates. It'd be harder for Trump to land blows against him than it would be with many other of the possible candidates, because the right simply hasn't had enough time to prepare for him.

People are ruling Bernie out too easily. His age isn't ideal, but he is still the most popular politician in the country. Doesn't that count for something? The most popular politician being in the most prominent post would seem to be democracy functioning as it's supposed to, right?

It's all well and good to say that Bernie is too old, but who is the alternative? Senator Warren would be great too, but she's as old as he is. And the drop off after those two is pretty steep. I agree younger is better, if looking at two candidates of equal merit. But there aren't other prominent candidates who are close to the same caliber, at least out of those currently being rumoured. Do you really want to support a Republican-light Democrat who's not going to fight to improve things, just because they're younger?

I agree that against Trump, Corey Booker or Kamala Harris would have a good shot of winning the election, but it would be a small victory if they were to win the office and then do nothing with it. Republicans are moving further and further right, and the core of the Democratic party are moving right along with them. Like John said earlier, the presidency will most likely continue to flip back and forth for years to come. Every time the Democrats win by catering to the right, they're really gifting a victory to the Republicans. Democrats should be voting for progressives who will fight for their values.

Beto O'Rourke is an interesting option, but he couldn't even win in Texas, and more importantly he didn't seem to have the kind of fight in him that's needed in the current political climate. If you can't fire a cheap shot or two in a race against Ted freaking Cruz of all people, then you might not be cut out for politics. Democrats have allowed themselves to be bullied by Republicans for too long, and have allowed the right to shape the narrative. I'm not sure O'Rourke is the right person to fight back. He could be an interesting VP candidate for someone though.

I was hoping a more obvious, better choice than Bernie would pop up but at this point I just don't think it's happening. He's the most popular guy you have, he's right on the issues (at least for the most part), he has a track record of changing the political narrative, he's got a strong legislative record of both standing up for his voters, and getting stuff done. Apart from age, he's the complete package, and I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to go with someone else considering where the rest of the field is at.

Hanley! wrote:Beto O'Rourke is an interesting option, but he couldn't even win in Texas, and more importantly he didn't seem to have the kind of fight in him that's needed in the current political climate. If you can't fire a cheap shot or two in a race against Ted freaking Cruz of all people, then you might not be cut out for politics. Democrats have allowed themselves to be bullied by Republicans for too long, and have allowed the right to shape the narrative. I'm not sure O'Rourke is the right person to fight back. He could be an interesting VP candidate for someone though.

Boy, I think you're totally mischaracterizing what happened in that race.

For a Democratic Socialist to have pushed Ted Cruz as close to a loss in Texas of all places was a MASSIVE upset that could have only been topped by him somehow pulling off the win. It's been decades since a democrat won a statewide race in Texas, and we're not just talking about any Democrat, we're talking about a far-left democratic socialist here. To say he "couldn't even win in Texas" sort of understates what he accomplished there... he raised more money than anyone in the nation without massive donors in a race that just about no Democrat has any business winning, even when the opponent is as hated as Ted Cruz. If anything, he's MORE cut out for national politics because of that than he is for Texan politics, because he's shown the ability to capture voters nationwide.

O'Rourke showed plenty of fight in his race as well; he threw punches when he needed to, but didn't get dirty. Which is another thing Democrats need to hold on to as long as possible.

I'm not ruling out Sanders totally I guess, I mean I'd absolutely vote for him if he was the nominee. But I'm not voting for Biden, Sanders or anyone over the age of 75 in the primaries, and definitely not Liz Warren either, who I like but who I think would get stomped by Trump in the general. It's time for new faces and new ideas. Anyone who's been around for decades is a liability at this point.

When I said "even in Texas" I meant even in his own state as opposed to nationwide. I know it's a red state, though demographically Texas is trending towards becoming a blue state sooner rather than later. I do think that Cruz was beatable though, and it's easier to beat the right with someone from the far-left than someone who's centrist, which is what the Democrats don't seem to understand. Beto was good on the issues and accomplished a lot considering where he came from, but I feel like he would have had a real shot at the win if he was more of a fighter. I watched some of the debate and Beto seemed too polite to land any meaningful blows. Right now only one party is playing by the rules. I just think the Democrats need candidates who are willing to get a little dirty.

This is all from someone who's looking at this stuff from the outside though, so I appreciate you guys know more about your own country's politics than I do. My main point is just that I don't think you should write off Bernie in favour of a more right-leaning Democrat that's not going to get shit done, and that's where the majority of the field are at.

Hanley! wrote:When I said "even in Texas" I meant even in his own state as opposed to nationwide. I know it's a red state, though demographically Texas is trending towards becoming a blue state sooner rather than later. I do think that Cruz was beatable though, and it's easier to beat the right with someone from the far-left than someone who's centrist, which is what the Democrats don't seem to understand. Beto was good on the issues and accomplished a lot considering where he came from, but I feel like he would have had a real shot at the win if he was more of a fighter. I watched some of the debate and Beto seemed too polite to land any meaningful blows. Right now only one party is playing by the rules. I just think the Democrats need candidates who are willing to get a little dirty.

This is all from someone who's looking at this stuff from the outside though, so I appreciate you guys know more about your own country's politics than I do. My main point is just that I don't think you should write off Bernie in favour of a more right-leaning Democrat that's not going to get shit done, and that's where the majority of the field are at.

Texas will never go blue. They have a growing number of blue residents, but for a various reasons many of them aren't eligible to/or able to vote. Beto losing narrowly was like a landslide victory in most other states. That being said, I'm not sure he's the right candidate.

As for playing dirty, that never works for Democrats and won't. As much as the right likes to bitch about political correctness run amok, they get energized by having their feelings hurt more than anyone. If anything, playing dirty was the moment that Hillary lost the election to Trump. The moment she called Trump supporters a bunch of deplorables it was over.

As for Bernie, public perception and imagery matters huge in American politics and Bernie climbing up on stage for national debates looking frail and like he won't make it through four years of one of the toughest jobs in the world will be a huge cross for him to bear.

Yeah the huge double standard that conservative voters have is that they love it when their candidates play dirty but flip their shit when Democrats try to get feisty or dirty too. Meanwhile liberal voters tend to have higher standards of their candidates and care about maintaining the moral majority. Ultimately, the fact that liberal voters are simply by and large better people (sorry not sorry for the generalization) than conservative voters these days sort of works against them.